"I think"

[averroes3000]

When Descarte said "I think there fore I am" , he was trying to prove himself. But is "I think" an activity of thinking or is identifying a being or a form that incorporates both?.

[Kolriss]

When he says 'I think, therefore I am', you've got to look at the reasoning he had before he came up with the statement.

He was worried that he was living in what we'd call a 'dream world' induced by a demon, so that the world around him (and him as well) wasn't real. His realisation was, that even if it was a false world, he's still experiencing it, thinking in it, interacting with it - and by that point, he is real.

I think/percieve therefore I am.

[Symptom777]

I see it as an assumption: I think therefore I am.

Upon this assumption you can build a philosophy, a picture. You can also determine whether the assumption is sufficient of itself to construct reality.
Like 1+ 1 = 2.

[dream_weaver]

I rather "Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum" - I think that I think therefore I think I am.
It's a little less reassuring since you are making a more direct assumption-definitely 'thinking' as an activity- but seems to clear up things just a touch .
What do you think?

[Symptom777]

I don't think it matters much. It's an assumption, the idea is to have as small a number of assumptions as possible, and from that build up a philosophy.

If you start with, the sun is yellow how far do you get? By starting with I think therfore I am, you can go quite a long way. Now you exist, therefore when you experience reality then reality also exists . . .

[Durin]

Actually symptom, descartes wanted to start without assumptions. He discarded everything of which he could not be 100% true, including physical reality and people around us on the basis that we could be fooled in believing in physical reality. But if I am fooled in believing in what I percieve, "I" am still being percieved. So "I" must at least exist to be fooled.
So if nothing is real, "I" am still here beholding this not-realness.

[CONFAD]

symptom, can you be more precise when you say it is an assumption? What part is being assumed? Is the assumption that we think? If not, then it is not an assumption to say that I think therefore I exist. If you are saying the entire assertion is an assumption then you are wrong. Thinking requires being, it is not much less than an argument - rather it is re a rearrangement of meaning and words - but it is more than an assumption.

[Symptom777]

I agree that Descartes wanted to start with no assumptions, but he failed! When you write a list of "everything I know for sure" - it tends to be empty.

So where do you start - you have to make an assumption about something - what is real? Well I am real - I don't know that for sure of course but it feels right. So - I think therefore I am. Descartes believes that he thinks, but even this he cannot prove, he assumes it, and so assuming this to be the case he assumes his existence.

[Durin]

The list went more like this, 'things I think I know'. And then crossing each one out as you meditate on them, he crossed everything out except his own existence.

[dream_weaver]

Originally Posted by averroes3000

When Descarte said "I think there fore I am" , he was trying to prove himself. But is "I think" an activity of thinking or is identifying a being or a form that incorporates both?.

Descartes' own words in context:
'I noticed that while I was trying to think everything else, it must be needs be that I, who was thinking that, was something. And observng that this truth, cogito ergo sum, was so solid ans secure that the most extravagant suppositions of the sceptics could not overthrow it, I judged that I need not scruple to accept it as the first principle of philosophy that I was seeking.'

He believed that thought was the necessary precursor of true knowledge. The very idea that he was thinking was his seemingly unarguable fact.

[Kolriss]

I agree that Descartes wanted to start with no assumptions, but he failed! When you write a list of "everything I know for sure" - it tends to be empty.

He did cross everything out... even himself, until he realised that he'd have to exist to be able to be thinking about it.

[Symptom777]

Originally Posted by dream_weaver

Descartes' own words in context:
'I noticed that while I was trying to think everything else, it must be needs be that I, who was thinking that, was something. And observng that this truth, cogito ergo sum, was so solid ans secure that the most extravagant suppositions of the sceptics could not overthrow it, I judged that I need not scruple to accept it as the first principle of philosophy that I was seeking.'

How pleasing! I knew nothing of Descartes except his ubiquitous quote. It is an assumption.

[Kolriss]

So, Symptom, you believe people can think, without existing?

I know the inverse is true (www.totse.com is a great example - check the forum).

[Symptom777]

Originally Posted by Kolriss

So, Symptom, you believe people can think, without existing?

I, myself, am proof of that, am I not?

[Symptom777]

I exist, but not physically.